KazooSkinsFan wrote:Those are pretty ridiculous comparisons to the majority not being offended by a sports team nickname.

Sure, I completely agree with you. I'm just responding to the post above about "majority rules". We do a lot of things in this country to protect a minority of people that the majority may not agree with. Being a majority does not always == being correct. Do you disagree with that?

If you want to support the Redskins name then make your case and tell the world why its not offensive. Crying that you should get your way because you're "in the majority" is a b.s. argument.

I think u took my "majority" statement to literal. But if th majority of Native Americans are NOT offended by the term, and more Natives would actually be offended if we DO change the name.. than why not take to the polls?Despite your arguments all the motives are NOT genuine and people on soap boxes looking for their moment in the lime light shouldn't be the only voices heard.I'd be happy to provide you links of a Chief that would be devastated if there was a name change who feels it's just anotheway to make his people be forgotten if it's changed.Or the origin of the word in this context.Or that cowboy was a racist term for blacks on the plantations...Am I arguing w a skins fan about the name change? Crazy.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Those are pretty ridiculous comparisons to the majority not being offended by a sports team nickname.

Sure, I completely agree with you. I'm just responding to the post above about "majority rules". We do a lot of things in this country to protect a minority of people that the majority may not agree with. Being a majority does not always == being correct. Do you disagree with that?

If you want to support the Redskins name then make your case and tell the world why its not offensive. Crying that you should get your way because you're "in the majority" is a b.s. argument.

The point is, not every one can get their way, and when you have an issue where there are people with totally opposite points of view on the matter, you go with the majority...if a small fraction of people are offended, then so be it...why piss off the masses just to please the few? This country has turned into one that does everything bass-ackwards...

cowboykillerzRGiii wrote:Despite your arguments all the motives are NOT genuine and people on soap boxes looking for their moment in the lime light shouldn't be the only voices heard.I'd be happy to provide you links of a Chief that would be devastated if there was a name change who feels it's just anotheway to make his people be forgotten if it's changed.Or the origin of the word in this context.Or that cowboy was a racist term for blacks on the plantations...Am I arguing w a skins fan about the name change? Crazy.

Christian was originally a derogatory term and Christmas started as a Pagan holiday.

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

I want the Vikings to change their name. I'm half English and historically, Vikings ransacked our villages. I'm offended that an NFL team would rub that history in my face every Sunday. Obviously they're doing it for the purpose of offending me, why else would they chose that name other than to be offensive?

Given the history of the IRA, Notre Dame Irish, Syracuse Orangement and the Boston Celtics are clearly advocating terrorism. I lived in NY and was in the area on 9/11. That's just offensive, it's like they are taunting me.

And they call my home State of Michigan, "the rust belt." Clearly the Steelers are just using it to taunt us, Iron, Rust. Offensive, change it.

Giants would be offensive to fat people, Patriots to Quakers. I think we need to restrict teams to only inanimate objects so we don't offend anyone no matter how badly they want to be offended.

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

P A T I E N C E - Scot & Jay's goal here is to make this franchise better - it will take time they understand the need to change to primarily building through the draft - plus have some luck go their way

Because I enjoy football. Because I grew up watching and attending games with my dad.

Why are you a fan? Because you love the logo?

Seriously man, I totally respect the fans point of view. Obviously nobody wants to keep the name because they hate Native Americans and love sticking it to them with the Redskins name. I also respect the point of view of Native Americans (however large or small their numbers) who think its offensive or in bad taste. I hope everybody can work something out.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------"You can't do epic **** with basic people." - DJax"We’re winning off the field, but we’ve got to start winning on the field." - Bruce Allen

Pretty interesting piece on what it would mean (or not mean) financially to Snyder to change the name:

We in the sports world like to simplify complicated economic issues, and so goes a question I've heard from readers and admittedly wondered myself: Why would a capitalist such as Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder oppose changing his team's name when he could make a ton of money from merchandise sales adorned with the new brand?

The quick answer: Because he probably can't, at least not in the short term. A poke through the NFL's labyrinth of financial rules and interviews with experts revealed two important factors. First, a chunk of that revenue would be shared with 30 other teams. Second, the immediate costs connected with a rebrand could extend into "the millions," according to one analyst.

The NFL's revenue-sharing system is set up for all teams but the Dallas Cowboys to share national merchandise sales. (The Cowboys opted out of the consortium.) So when you buy a Robert Griffin III jersey at your local sporting goods store, the NFL's portion of the proceeds is split equally among the remaining teams. The Redskins would receive 1/31 of it.

Teams are incentivized to set up their own points of purchase, however, and they keep the profits from those sales. So if you buy an RG III jersey from the Redskins' website, or at FedEx Field or when you visit training camp, the Redskins don't have to share their take.

The breakdown of sales between national and team-specific points of purchase is a closely held secret, but given the international appeal of the Redskins, it's safe to say that a good chunk of their total sales must be shared with the other 30 teams. As a result, the Redskins would miss out on at least a significant portion of whatever uptick a new name would drive.

And in the bigger picture, the experts I spoke with weren't certain of our basic premise: That a name change would drive massive sales of merchandise.

"It really depends on how the change is perceived," said David Carter, the director of the Sports Business Institute at USC. "Remember, fans don't like name changes. They learn to live with them. If they perceive the team has handled it well, that it was proactive and collaborative, if the community viewed it as a good decision, and they had a great marketing game plan and messaging, if they went that route, it could be a success."

Mark Conrad, the director of the sports business specialization at Fordham's Gabelli School of Business, said the name change could be a "bonanza" if it is proactive and well executed. If it's forced, however, Redskins fans might not buy in -- literally.

"It could be a bonanza if you get the right name and process," Conrad said. "If you did it right, by yourself without a court saying it or the NFL saying it, it could bring you goodwill on a local and national level. But if the owner is smirking or growling about it, if you're effectively saying, 'I don't like this new brand but I'm forced to do it,' as opposed to saying, 'This is a creative new way to maintain the identity of the franchise,' then revenues will be impacted."

Meanwhile, Conrad said it would be difficult to provide a specific estimate on the second factor: the costs relating to a name change. The Redskins would presumably absorb all of them.

Four years ago, Michael Jordan estimated it would cost between $3 million and $10 million to revert his NBA franchise name in Charlotte back to the Hornets from the Bobcats, a change completed this summer. Generally speaking, NFL franchises are bigger businesses than those in the NBA, but using a multiplier in this case would just be a guess.

"There are just so many factors involved," Conrad said, from potential consulting fees to physical changes on owned property to legal costs. "It could be millions of dollars in the short term. That, I think, is a good estimate."

Given the unprecedented nature of an NFL name change, Carter said it is possible that the league could step in to cover some costs, reducing the drag on the Redskins' bottom line. These are all issues of short-term finances, of course. Both Conrad and Carter said the long-term matter of brand impact could be far more valuable. In an immediate sense, however, it's difficult to envision the kind of net revenue bonanza that seems intuitively obvious to those of us in the world of amateur sports economics.

I gotta think nobody would be that enthusiastic about the name change that they would be running out to buy all new gear. There would probably be a run on the OLD gear!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------"You can't do epic **** with basic people." - DJax"We’re winning off the field, but we’ve got to start winning on the field." - Bruce Allen

riggofan wrote:Pretty interesting piece on what it would mean (or not mean) financially to Snyder to change the name:

I see no positive way to change the name when it's only done to satisfy a small percentage of people who have a stick up their butt and too much time on their hands supported by microphone whoring politicians.

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

Because I enjoy football. Because I grew up watching and attending games with my dad.

Why are you a fan? Because you love the logo?

Seriously man, I totally respect the fans point of view. Obviously nobody wants to keep the name because they hate Native Americans and love sticking it to them with the Redskins name. I also respect the point of view of Native Americans (however large or small their numbers) who think its offensive or in bad taste. I hope everybody can work something out.

I don't get your logo question, but they are the "Washington Redskins." That is their identity. I also like the "Detroit Red Wings." Changing their name changes who they are. Neither the Las Vegas Red Wings or the Detroit Marauders would be the Detroit Red Wings.

If we changed it to the Washington Braves then we can keep the same identity and as a perk piss off the stick up their butt crowd. While the media doesn't point this out, notice that there is virtually no difference between the Indians who want to change Redskins and other Indian names. They poll virtually the same. The vast majority of Indians are fine with or even good with all of the names. A small minority with sticks up their butt are obsessed with being offended, and they do so at every opportunity.

As for why you are a Redskin fan, it wasn't a historical question. It was a question why you like a team you are arguing has a racist name.

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way